folsom, need help authenticating

[outlaws15]

Here are the pictures.
Thanks twitch, do you mind if I copy your post on the other thread and put it here?

 

[outlaws15]

This is from Garscale and a little out of order, cause Garscale is replying to twitch as soon as twitch tells me to share his I will.



Twitch you called it in hand about like I see it on the net. The new pics show thickness right in line with Folsom. Also the margins were worked off after the biface was fluted which is exactly right for Folsom.

The red flags to me were that it was not in the original pics. Doesn't show edge grinding. Does not exhibit the creek stain seen on the other artifacts and the basal ears are a tad odd. It looked too thick in the first two pics as well but new pics make it look better.

If authentic it is a first stage Folsom never hafted. Wish I could see it in person but I respect Twitchs observation of mineralization.

 

[Indian Steve]

That sure is nice but I'm not smart enough to say it is real or not. I'm hoping it is!

 

[Twitch]

Here's what I posted earlier in the other thread. Interested in everyone's thoughts.

Was great to meet Rick and Tammy; had a great visit today. A lot of really nice points in the collection. An extremely nice lost lake (could use it's own post also), the ovid blade (I think it's paleo), lots of nice Etley's, table rocks, a lot really solid artifacts. In addition we scouted some potential hunting areas around their place and am confident we'll be seeing some personal finds before too long.

Let me talk to the Folsom pictured above. First, it's clearly a Folsom style point and not collected the same area as the other points in the collection (east central MO or southwest MO). Rick - I would actually start a new thread on this point by itself and title it something like "Folsom help / authentication". After handling the point my key observations are this:
1) The form and manufacture seem correct for a Folsom, including the flute platform preparation and finishing. L/W ratio is correct, thickness is correct. It's a good looking point in hand.
2) There is clear mineralization on the surface.
3) There are no loose hinge flakes on the piece.
4) The base is not ground. Obviously you would normally expect it to be well ground up the sides. One thing I was thinking is I struggle a little with the idea that someone has the knowledge and technical ability to physically produce this point with the intent to deceive someone, goes through the trouble of adding mineralization and yet forgets or doesn't know to grind the base? Somehow for me the lack of basal grinding actually helps it case.
5) This style is out of area for Eastern Missouri.
6) Of the other 100+ pieces in the collection not one of them are modern or show any signs of historic modification.

All of that being said, even after living in New Mexico for 5 years I am not at all an expert on Folsom. You're really going to need the opinion of some of the southwest and northern plains guys.

Thanks again for sharing your collection.

 

[joshuaream]

There is only so much you can tell from pictures, but it looks a little off for a Folsom to me. Still absolutely worth taking it to a show to get multiple opinions, or sending it off to an Authenticator for their opinion. If it's got decent mineralization it could just be a Folsomy looking Clovis.

From the other thread:

A couple more coming
Thickness
Point =.187
Middle =.241
Base = .175

A couple of observations.

While a quarter inch thick is relatively thin, that's a lot thicker than any of the broken Folsoms I have in my collection. They can be thicker in the eastern edges of their range, but that would be thick for a High Plains and SW Folsom. (That can change a bit depending on how it was measured, calipers between the flutes are the best way to measure.)

One of these theories about how Folsoms were hafted was they were "socketed" in a cross section of rib bone (where the marrow is), and they are usually strait sided. Your point seems to be significantly wider about 3/4's of the way up. Whether they were hafted in a rib or not, look at authentic Folsoms from sites or well documented collections, and the vast majority are strait sided. (You do see some that expand though.)

There are a couple of other things that make me question it being a Folsom (the flute margins, the length of the flutes, the tip work, and edge grinding), but it's really just a guess based on the pictures. An in hand examination is far better than me looking at the pictures on my phone.

 

[outlaws15]

Hey everyone just got back the point and it turned out to be modern made reproduction of a folsom.
Not flaked correctly on the edges and was flaked using a metal tool.
I sent it to Dwain Roger's and I'm guessing it isn't worth a second opinion?
Again I know nothing about points so just asking.

 

[Buckleberry]

If he said it was manufactured with a metal tool, there's a very good chance that you yourself, using a loupe magnifier, could look and see remnant scrapings of what is likely going to be copper on the artifact, especially on the edges and there's really only one reason for them to be there.

 

[Garscale]

Hey everyone just got back the point and it turned out to be modern made reproduction of a folsom.
Not flaked correctly on the edges and was flaked using a metal tool.
I sent it to Dwain Roger's and I'm guessing it isn't worth a second opinion?
Again I know nothing about points so just asking.

You just found out what several of us already knew. No one could come out and say it on the off chance that it was good. As I said in my first post after seeing it, there were red flags. Not worth another opinion. Sorry it turned out bad. I was holding out tiny hope that it was a legit Clovis.

 

[outlaws15]

Thanks, disappointed but it was fun. Definitely got me off the couch and back out in the creeks/river.
Like I said b4 in a post I think I was just happy there were a few arrowheads in the bunch.
Also got me curious about what some of my others might be worth.
Thanks again for all the information.
Rick

 

[Garscale]

Just to clarify on arrowheads...if it had been Folsom it certainly wasn't a true arrowheads. The bow and arrow was invented or brought to the Americas only about 2000 years ago. Before that most of what we call arrowheads were actually hand thrown on a spear or atlatl dart. You have a bunch of those. I don't see anything right off That would be under 2000 years old.

 

[outlaws15]

Hate to hijack my own thread, but since the original thread has been verified, here goes
Are any of these arrowheads? B4 I found the box I thought everything was an arrowhead, I think u know what I mean

Just to clarify on arrowheads...if it had been Folsom it certainly wasn't a true arrowheads. The bow and arrow was invented or brought to the Americas only about 2000 years ago. Before that most of what we call arrowheads were actually hand thrown on a spear or atlatl dart. You have a bunch of those. I don't see anything right off That would be under 2000 years old.

 

[Garscale]

Those are probable arrow points.

 

[Relicgrubber]

Last week I read on FB that Dwain wasn’t doing authentications at this time?

 

[joshuaream]

Rick,

I appreciate the follow up post on this, as I am sure a lot of other people do as well.

Sorry it wasn't authentic, but it still makes for a neat piece.

Joshua

 

[outlaws15]

Here is an idea. I do not remember having this piece in my small (maybe 4 to 5 pieces) collection.
I took the original photos of everything I found in my parents garage and this piece wasn't in that for sure.
I'm wondering with all the knowledge and contacts on this site, if we could find out who knapped(I think right word to describe) this piece?
I grew up in Creve Couer, MO. The points and artifacts I found was on a golf course called Quai Creek in south county, really couldn't be here cause these were found naturally. ( I'll hit the creeks around there soon).
Left for Austin TX, around 1988. Worked in Lakeway at the Academy of Golf and The Hills Country Club. Came back to MO, in 1995 and bought a house in Troy, MO.
Giving this information, because I must have acquired this point somewhere in my time line.
If this is a stupid idea, no big deal I have had many b4 this one and hopefully just a few going forward.
Rick

 

[Garscale]

I wish jim hopper would log in and see it. He may know who likely made it. In my opinion. Granted I didn't have it in hand... It wasn't made by a Folsom expert. The shape is more Clovis. Its not really thin enough per your numbers and I would guess it is jig fluted like Cumberland. Finish work is like Folsom though. It might be a woody Blackwell item but not his best work if it is.

 

[Tdog]

I wish jim hopper would log in and see it. He may know who likely made it. In my opinion. Granted I didn't have it in hand... It wasn't made by a Folsom expert. The shape is more Clovis. Its not really thin enough per your numbers and I would guess it is jig fluted like Cumberland. Finish work is like Folsom though. It might be a woody Blackwell item but not his best work if it is.

Do you remember a guy from Arrowheadforums named Tony I believe. He made a LOT of Folsom points and may have made this one. I can't remember where he is from--maybe California.

 

[Garscale]

I barely remember him. Steve Behrens makes Folsom but his are stupid real. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure there are some of his in high profile collections.

I don't know the material this one is made from. That would help.

 

[outlaws15]

I just sent off a email to c if Dwain would remember the point and asked him about what it was made of.

I barely remember him. Steve Behrens makes Folsom but his are stupid real. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure there are some of his in high profile collections.

I don't know the material this one is made from. That would help.

 

[outlaws15]

Tan chert from somewhere other than TX.